Thanks all for the clarity.
(Switch is right, you need a destroyer present in other A&A games).
Rockets can do heavy cash damage and even “safe Moscow” in some games!
Germany has 2 initial ICs (GER & SEU), Japan normally builds a new one in IND (in this game also one in SIN was built).
Immagine Russia has an average to strong russian army and an average UK-army protecting only Moscow, but it is cut off from further allied supply as Germany firmly holds LEN and Japan is in CAU so that neither the US-Army in Egypt, nor much more UK-troops can advance (besides some trades of NOR and ARC and amph. assaults on all countries around the Mediterranean). With US-rockets on 5 ICs (aa-guns placed in GBR, ALG, LIB, EGY & MOS) and a allied navy in the Med, this really helps to slow down the axis and I even plan to devellop rockets for UK! If you have 4 or more potenial targets, it
s imho definitely worth going for it! Average demage is twice 3,5$ (SEU, GER), once 3$ (CAU) and once 2,5$ (IND). Thats a demage of 12,5$ per round with an US-investment of about 43$ (“average cost” of 33$ with two dice per round for gaining the tech and 10$ for two additional aa`s). And it this strategic situation there is nohing better to do for USA. Game is a toss-up and will certainly take very long!
SuperSubs are great if USA only invests in a Pacific battle and can be used as a strategy!
HB & ComB are imho a little too week in LHTR and are used very rarely.
Jets are only good for tactical use, i.e. if you have to increase your fgt-defence immediately from 4 to 5 as you expect an attact on a key territory! As a (long-term) strategy they are almost useless (e.g. immunity against aa`s is fine, but buying another fgt for 10$ to compensate an aa-theat is much cheaper)!
LRA may be “nice to have” is some situaitions (both strategic and tactical), but as you can only use it next round, they are never a “game-breaker”
I still disagree with Policy Paper #16 in regards to rockets.
Other posters must remember that Policy Paper #16 is based on CaspianSub rules (LHTR rules for tech similar in regards to delay factor).
OOB, going tech is a valid strategy. I’m going to pull my old Rocket tech strat out for Germany.
To wit -
I think Policy Paper 16 was released prematurely. It is written for LHTR and CaspianSub rules, and makes no mention of OOB with/without FAQs. It assumes a chunk of 30 IPC spent at one time on tech. Although the paper does not specifically say so, I think it likely that it was even more specifically aimed at tournament play (short games).
It should be rewritten, I think.
It is written for LHTR and CaspianSub rules, and makes no mention of OOB with/without FAQs.
Nope, it was written for CSub rules.Â You’ll notice it is a CSub siteÂ
Why would we write about OOB strategies when we’ve already demonstrated that OOB is flawed?
It assumes a chunk of 30 IPC spent at one time on tech.
Nope.Â The paper assumes an average cost of 30 IPCs, and it specifically says that the most cost efficient method is $5 at a time while most people actually buy tech in batches.Â The paper does not say people spend exactly $30 on tech.
Although the paper does not specifically say so, I think it likely that it was even more specifically aimed at tournament play (short games).
Uh, how about the line in the paper summary that says: "NOTE: The scope of this paper is the typical face-to-face game that won’t last many rounds."Â That is as specific as you can get that the paper is about short games.Â Tournament games are a subset of short games and don’t require separate treatment.Â And in fact, tournament play is a minor part of the CSub editors’ gaming.
Thanks for the input.
CrazyStraw, you know I am illiterate.
No, I guess I just skipped over a lot of the paper, my bad. But am I alone in thinking the paper is generally down on tech?
It is definitely tech negative.
But, as CS pointed out, it is a highly specific evaluation in that it pertains to the 7 turn (or less) game. Which I guess is an OK assumption for C-Sub to use due to the way they play. But it is a hyper invalid assumption for most of us here. And the economics of several of those techs, rockets in particular, changes dramatically with just 1 or 2 extra turns of play… and with a player who is using a strategy to maximize the benefits of those techs.
CrazyStraw, you know I am illiterate.
Quite the contrary!Â The reason I replied is that you have had many good posts in the past, and I expect more in the future.
You’re right; the paper is certainly down on tech as a strategy.Â It is very pro-tech for Tech Power Projection when you need to buff up a group of units far from your ICs.
I am pleasantly surprised at the various folks pushing back on the assessment, particularly for rockets.Â It strikes me that this may be a classic example of how different groups have different general modes of play.Â Like some groups are heavy KJF, others are KGF, some go for tech every game, some do almost exclussive infrantry builds, etc.
This is complicated by the fact that tech out of the box is broken.Â So the set of fixes you take (Triple A, LHTR, CSub, etc.) will also color your opinion on tech.
LRA Bombers in Hawaii cannot be replicated. They keep Japan free of transports.
Tech allows you to try to save a losing game with a five IPC investment.